Tuesday, March 30, 2010

So what should women do?

I read an item recently about marriage trends in Denmark. What struck me the most was how late in life Danes marry. The average age of first marriage for men is 34.5 years, for women 32.1 years.

This delay in family formation has been a trend across the West. It comes with some obvious problems, one of which is compromised fertility. It's now known that a woman's fertility begins to decline at age 27 and a man's at age 35. So if family formation is pushed back to the mid-30s, then many people will miss out on children they wanted to have.

Professional women have been hit the hardest. In the US, for example, 47% of women aged 40 to 44 years with graduate or professional degrees are childless. Nor have these women deliberately chosen this outcome; one researcher found that only 14% of such women had the intention as young women of remaining childless.

The female response to all this varies. There are women, like Lori Gottlieb, who admit that they made mistakes when younger. I recently watched a video of Gottlieb discussing her regrets at having passed up a number of men who were "eights" when in her twenties in order to hold out for a non-existent "ten". She also made the good point that it's a mistake to look for someone who is your mirror image, the opposite sex version of yourself.

But there are also women who argue that they have no control over the delay in family formation and simply haven't had the good luck to meet the right man. This is the response, for instance, of Jill Stark:

For many women in their 30s and 40s the reason they are not mothers has very little to do with partying, playing the field or breaking through the glass ceiling. Not one of my wonderful, intelligent, vibrant female friends who does not have children values a night [drinking] over starting a family. Almost all want to be mothers - some had hoped they would be by now.

But it takes two to make a baby. Finding the right partner is a lottery and it can be a long wait for your numbers to come up. When they do, making it work is not guaranteed. For some, love will come too late.

However, instead of being afforded the same support and compassion as the medically infertile, these women will be forced to accept the fallacy that it's their fault.

Tough luck for them. They chose to hold out for Mr Perfect when they could have settled for Mr You'll Do. They were just too picky.

This pernicious phrase is one that single women start to hear a lot after their 30th birthday. But what does it mean? Is it ''too picky'' to not stay with someone who is non-committal about children? Or should you persevere in the hope that you can wear them down? If he doesn't come round you can always ''forget'' to take your birth control pills, right? Perhaps ''too picky'' is not being prepared to bring children into a loveless or abusive relationship. Or maybe it's rejecting an unfaithful partner or one whose fascination with himself far exceeds his interest in you.

I don't really buy this. If Jill Stark's friends are really such wonderful, family oriented women, then why are they stuck in relationships with unsuitable men?

Either they have chosen the wrong sort of men to start a family with, or else there is a terrible shortage of family oriented men to begin with.

No matter which of these is true, something dysfunctional is happening. If it's a problem of women choosing unsuitable men, then Jill Stark has to ask why she and her friends would do this. If it's a problem of men rejecting marriage and fatherhood, then she ought to think about why this might be so.

Instead, she argues that the problem is that relationships are just a lottery, a matter of luck, which suggests that we have no control over our own prospects.

What might women do to improve the situation? Here are just a few things that spring to mind:

a) Be decisive. There are a lot of wavering women out there. They're not sure if they want to be mothers. They're not quite able to get over a poor relationship with their own father. Not being quite sure, they tend to either withdraw or go out with "placeholder" men who won't ever bring things to the point of commitment.

b) Partner up early on (by your mid-20s). We tend to have the widest social network in our early 20s. We're also propelled by our emotions and biology most strongly toward the opposite sex at this time. Men are unlikely prior to their mid-20s to have settled comfortably into bachelorhood or to have high-level resentments toward women.

c) Make marriage and children the priority they ought to be. It does register with men when women relegate marriage and children as items on their life list. Men too will start to reorient psychologically to other things. Don't think that men can be easily brought back a decade or so later on.

d) Reward the family guy. This is what women used to do. It was the family guy who got the love and respect of women.

e) Encourage men to be masculine. It is a masculine instinct to take on the responsibilities of being a husband and father, not a weakly androgynous one.

e) Support a culture of family life however you can. This includes rejecting laws or policies which undermine the position of men within family life.

Reading Jill Stark's article, you get the sense that things have gone dramatically wrong for a layer of Western women. They've ended up with men they can't form families with and they seem to accept this as the way things must be.

The triumphalism is gone, replaced by a fatalistic sense of being caught within narrowed life options.

58 comments:

That is the age of first marriage, but are they having kids out of wedlock before that?

If Fembots and lawyers don't breed, is that such a bad thing? =)

Either they have chosen the wrong sort of men to start a family with, or else there is a terrible shortage of family oriented men to begin with.

The "shortage" of family-oriented men is due in no small part to the powerful disincentives for men to marry that feminists have created. Yet they can't even see this! They blame the men for "not wanting to commit"! Well, duh, baby, of course men don't want to agree to something that's manifestly not in their interest.

Make the rules of marriage fair, or advantageous to men, and there will be no shortage of family-oriented men. (And yes, you might even need to tilt the playing field in favor of men, since a man has far less intrinsic desire to breed than a woman.)

I think it has less to do with the laws and more to do with the delay in marriage and the way the 20s plays itself out for both sexes.

The delay, while it works for some people, leaves quite a few people out. The reason for that is that many of the best mates of both sexes are snatched up by the mid-20s. They really are. So if, as a woman, you're not really interested in starting to think about whether your dates are husband material until you are 28, you've already left a lot of very good men on the table.

As for the men, as Mark rightly points out, the older they go remaining single, the less interested they will be in being married. The impression of unfair divorce law plays a role there, but it isn't the starring role. I think the starring role is played by the easy availability of sex without commitment -- the casual sex culture. Like it or lump it, but what has historically lured men into marriage were basically two things: (1) access to sex (where sex outside of marriage was socially shamed and in some cases legally punished) and (2) secure fatherhood. Neither of those really applies any longer, so fewer men are as interested in commitment, and are not showing up as "marriage material".

Of course the underlying cause for all of this is the reality that many women, especially of the educated professional set, simply want their 20s to themselves. And they're free to do so, of course, but there are costs that come along with that, and one of them is that the best mates are being snatched up while you are busy advancing up the rungs at the office, or taking exotic vacations with your girlfriends, or, in some cases, "riding the carousel", as Roissy would put it.

My parents taught me that I was to go to college and work really really hard. I got my masters in EE in 5 years time with practically straight A's and no Asian can hold a candle to me :) On Friday nights I sat on the floor of my bathroom studying, same as Saturday. (bathrooms are peaceful don't ask)

I had a crush on a guy who married a 'pre-med' student who ended up getting too low grades to go into medical school and instead became a teacher and got married to him 5 years after college.

Now that I'm 27 I joke with my parents...."I should've bagged someone in college when I had the chance!!"

Make up your minds. Do you want us to study are arses off and get good grades...or do you want us to grab a guy in the dorms and lure him into a relationship with sex and lie about 'being pre-med' when that is just a hook to impress him and throw him off the trail?

Honestly...What would you guys tell YOUR FUTURE DAUGHTERS to do when they enter college?

"Dear Daughter...when you get into the dorms....bag the first guy you like...it's easy...You'll be his first so he'll get addicted to you and then just marry him after college"

Now looking back, senior year of high school my Korean friend's mother started training her in the art of finding a husband (I'm pro-white for those who haven't figured it out and I hate interracial relationships...which frankly is one of the reasons why I'm single..most men disagree with me on interracial relationships.)

This chick went to a top college and within the first 2 weeks of school had gotten a slightly-nerdy blonde blue eyed guy from Old Money Anglo-Saxon Wasp Protestant land.

Seriously, she dated him, slept with him, and married him. Now he works full time in the military and she is a full-time "STUDENT" with a graduation date that was '09 then '10 and now '11. She spends his money, he spends his time in Afghanistan, and she doesn't want to have his children.

I had NO IDEA that was my goal in college! To trick men!!

Let's face it, the guy would never have gotten laid had it not been for the fact that my Korean friend had been trained by her mother in the art of wedding a man at the vulnerable age of 18-22.

I feel bad for him...he should have waited till he was older to find a nice girl instead of falling for easy sex.

Let me give you a very honest answer to your question. I would much prefer my daughter to meet a decent guy in college than to spend all her time studying.

Here's something else from the male point of view. For most men, it's not a woman's high academic or career accomplishments that will push the romantic buttons.

The guy you had a crush on probably doesn't mind that his "pre-med" girlfriend dropped out of medicine and became a teacher. He probably didn't want to compete career wise with his future wife.

Something else. It doesn't surprise me that the blue eyed, blond haired WASP guy you know married the Korean girl. I see similar couplings here all the time.

Not all men are confident enough to make things happen with women. Men of northern European descent are notoriously shy in this regard, which is one reason they drink too much in social situations.

Once upon a time, it didn't matter so much. It was enough for a man to have a good job and a good social status. Women needed such men to the point that they would help make things happen, just as your Korean friend did.

But women have been made more independent now and they are no longer impelled to make things happen. It's now much more up to the social skills of the man, and if these skills are even slightly off a man can find himself failing to attract female interest.

Fathers are going to have to get much better at building up the self-confidence of their sons. But we might also explain to our daughters the value in helping things along a bit with decent, promising guys who are a bit underconfident in their approach, particularly when young.

Finally, I do wish you success. You are 27, so there's no reason to think you've missed all your chances.

But please don't bank on your academic or career success; it's probably just as important to smile a lot, laugh at jokes, be friendly, show kindness and empathy, avoid shrillness or coldness, show some occasional vulnerability and so on. The key thing is to be attractively feminine.

I think the absolute best thing that we can do...that both men and women can agree on...is simply the following..

Make sure that salaries for blue collar/white collar men are high enough to support a decent sized family.

Teach your sons that sex is not love, and teach your daughters to keep their pants on.

Pride in culture and heritage and that children are not a burden but awesome and cute.

Simple.

I have another story! So in college there was a Christian guy who I absolutely thought was the model of the type of guy I wanted. Intelligent, wonderful, the whole nine yards...and he married the nicest girl on earth. He could not have found a better wife (she didn't go to college and was a nanny so admittedly I had some bitterness there but hey they 'fit' so you can't argue with fate) Anyways, I reconnected with him and his wife through facebook and was looking at their family photos. Guess what??

My perfect guy and his perfect wife adopted an Ethiopian kid. (They even have a blog about their trips to Ethiopia!) They have a white baby daughter and now a black baby son. Yes everyone....my model man and his model wife have decided to forgo having any more biological children in order to chase the Angelina Jolie Dream.

I was amazed to find that most guys in their mid-30s that have never married usually don't want to.

I am man a fair bit younger so I was a bit shocked, but looking back i really shouldn't have been.

What is the advantage of getting married if you are a good looking man with a decent job in his mid to late 30's?

You can have sex with all the careerist fembots who convince themselves that they can tame you, and women in their early to mid 30s tend to not inspire the same urge for reproduction as they once did.

Add to this the fact that many of the more "Marrying" type of men are already off the market, sometimes with a girl they found less attractive but more willing to settle down, and the situation begins to look a little bleak.

Being a woman and waiting till your mid 30's is a lot like abortion: they always mention the fun but forget to mention the downsides.

What you fail to realize is that psychologically, you were a male at university. Yep. Sorry to pop your pretty little bubble. No guy is interested in a woman who can outcompete against him in the public arena of career – it is emasculating, and creating an aura of emasculation isn’t exactly the best method of attracting a future husband, unless you want one who enjoys getting spanked. Your premed friend understood this. Your Korean friend is a sponge, one of the reasons why I don’t buy girls drinks, or dinner, or anything else for that matter. I’d rather be celibate than the whipping boy for an entitlement princess. The other correspondents on this thread are right – there is just no incentive for me to “commit” to a woman today – seriously, I honestly don’t believe they are worth it, none of them. And if there are exceptions to the rule, searching for them is too costly – too costly economically, too costly emotionally. Screw them. They wanted the sexual revolution – works fine for me too. If they’re not happy about their lot, sucked in. You got what you wanted. And if you feel you’ve been duped with all this “liberated feminist” crap, then stop complaining about men and have a few harsh words to your mother, aunties and anyone else that was busy burning their bras in the 60s.

I have to point out that the example of the perfect Christian couple adopting from Ethiopia and foregoing further biological children is a product of current Christian sentiments. It stems from the universalist notion that we are all equally God's children. Sort of a rightwing version of unicorns- and rainbows-esque New Age spiritualism.

Not *all* men would feel emasculated by a wife who earns more (not would such a mna necessarily be into S&M).

But then, even if the man a couple of which the woman earns more has no emotional problem with it, one still has to consider the strong possibility that the *woman* will have an emotional problem with earning more than her man.

I completely believe that 'on average' men are far more intelligent than women.

However, it's obvious that men are being outnumbered in university and many (white) men are not achieving as much as they are capable of. I think here in the states I blame that on 'putting down the white male'--of which feminism, and now the rise of minority power is a large part.

So....instead of blaming 'alpha-male' females as a problem...and being bitter towards and scorning us.....

How bout you all make a conscious decision to raise your sons with enough self-confidence and Aggression to kick ass of not only the women but everyone else (those nerdy asians who are taking over university would be a start). My dad instilled in me the aggressive attitude "It's the person who wants it more who succeeds."

Instead of dumbing down the girls...how bout you men Rise Up to face the challenge? Be smarter, faster, more aggressive, and more dominant.

Start by outnumbering us in University and since I'm an EE...could u white men please take back Engineering? Which frankly is the rightful place of a white male.

The problem here is that the women are unlovable and the men incapable of love.

The whole thing about marriage is that it is anti-solipsistic. You have to be other person focused. The broad effect of our modern culture is habituate the person with a solipsistic mindset so that when they come to a marrying age, the fundamental question they seek to fulfill/answer is, what's in it for me?

Really, the influence of modern feminism and consumer culture have transformed the modern woman into something completely unlovable. On the other hand the obvious disincentives to marriage for a man and the free benefits of marriage without the commitment and not going to force anyone into the arrangement.

But as anonymous said in the first comment is it really such a bad thing if lawyers and fembots don't breeed? Darwin selection, the world making itself right.

How bout you all make a conscious decision to raise your sons with enough self-confidence and Aggression to kick ass of not only the women but everyone else … Instead of dumbing down the girls...how bout you men Rise Up to face the challenge? Be smarter, faster, more aggressive, and more dominant.

What are you, a genius? This can’t happen because the general culture prevents it. The educations curricula prevent it. The constant narrative of pop-media prevents it. To avoid this one would necessarily have to become Amish or some ‘Freeman’ type hermit. Besides, nobody has advocated dumbing down women. Read The Thinking Housewife blog and you will understand. The fact that you are advocating teaching men to “kick ass of women” proves how totally clueless you are of traditionalist attitudes to gender.

"The fact that you are advocating teaching men to “kick ass of women” proves how totally clueless you are of traditionalist attitudes to gender."

There's no reason to be rude. The anonymous lady is a little crude, but she's not "clueless". What she meant to say, I think, is that we men should start achieving great things again and outperform the women and especially the Asians.

It's a fine plan, but I'm not sure about the execution. I think the reason men aren't already doing this is because they don't really think there's much of a point. They aren't animated by a desire to protect or provide for their people like the anonymous lady. Nor are they animated to discover the truth of the universe, like their forebears (what "truth"?).

The only motivation liberal society offers nowadays is status and money, and surprisingly, a lot of white men don't seem to find that very compelling. Who knew?

Anyway, man doesn't live by bread alone. He needs a higher cause to live for and sacrifice for. Paganism used to provide that, of a sort--honor. Christendom used to provide it--truth. Liberalism ("equality") however has fallen flat, probably because, unlike paganism and Christianity, it's thoroughly and totally false.

So what would I suggest (haha, I know, I know, no one asked): ditch liberalism and return to Christianity. I don't think anything's going to change until we do that.

I do not know how a situation has arisen where men and women are fighting with each other in an almost existential war. It is absurd.

If this blog is about traditional values, then all we have to do is to Love, Honour, Cherish and defend the woman or women in our lives. All else will follow, including victory in the existential fight we are in with Islam.

Men: maybe if you treated women more nicely women wouldn't be such bitches.

Anonymous, I wonder if it really works that way in practice. Women can be driven nuts by men being too nice.

One of the complaints of men of my generation is that we were taught that you got the girl by being the supplicating nice guy. But it didn't work. The girls went for the exciting bad guys who didn't treat them so well.

Women become less bitchy when they are in a relationship with a man who offers the right combination of security/stability/love/protection on the one hand, as well as masculine leadership/self-confidence/self-assertion on the other.

Still, I'd have to say that most girls wouldn't consider 'bad guys' to be marriage material, even if they are attracted to them- at the end of the day, women will go with their natural instincts and settle with the ones who are dependable. I think bad guys are seen as more of a temporary thing. (Then again, there are those girls who tend to go for abusive relationships... but I can't explain that.)

I agree 100% with your last paragraph though. I think it's a shame that those kinds of relationships are slowly becoming extinct. A man can't fulfill the man's role if the woman doesn't fulfill the woman's role; as you've said before, there's not really much point in having two genderless people in a marriage.

On a side note: I'm a young female studying at university and I actually hate what feminism has done. I don't want a career. I'm not interested in being a lawyer or an engineer or a CEO. But the way society is set up these days- this shift toward double-income families- means I don't have a choice. I have to work. Which means that my kids are essentially going to grow up in a childcare centre. In which case, you have to really wonder: what's the point in having a family at all?

Mark wrote: The problem is that single men are going to meet a lot of women who don't inspire or merit such a response.

And even the best women require more than loving, honouring and cherishing to become decent, faithful wives.

The above prescription is a good place to start. The rest will follow.

Men have always been the prime movers of society - all society, with few exceptions. Women, by their very nature, respond and react to the laws set by men, and the attitudes of men. It is men who set the rules, and have always done so. The laws and attitudes of men in the past 50 years is what has made women to behave in a manner that is leading to the breakdown of society, making it vulnerable to take over. If men don't care about women, under the pretence of giving freedom to women to do what they wish when they wish (being very nice), then many women will see it as a symptom that men don't care. They will the engage in ever more outrageous behaviour to attract the attention of men. This is not childish, but just that men and women act in a manner to attract each other’s attention. One can be tough and still be nice, thus attracting the respect of a woman for her man.

On the larger issue, we are not talking here of social encounters between men and women, but the breakdown of society, which then makes it vulnerable to outside forces or dangerous ones. Roissy type of people are beneath contempt, as they are taking advantage of the weakness which is inherent in both sexes, to exploit women in the most despicable way- they deserve nothing but a good hiding from the men concerned.

It is our society and its existence that is under discussion here, not just personal satisfaction and contentment.

Still, I'd have to say that most girls wouldn't consider 'bad guys' to be marriage material, even if they are attracted to them - at the end of the day, women will go with their natural instincts and settle with the ones who are dependable.

Yes, that's a point the Roissyites neglect at times. The so-called "betas" do often get to be the ones women settle with.

The problem is that the period of casual relationships has become so long, that the more dependable men can get discouraged.

It's not an appealing thought to think that you're going to finally get the woman not when she's at the prime of her youthful passion and desirability but only when she's finished with such things.

That's one reason why I believe it's critical to get the age of family formation down a few years, from the early thirties to say the mid-20s.

But the way society is set up these days - this shift toward double-income families - means I don't have a choice. I have to work. Which means that my kids are essentially going to grow up in a childcare centre. In which case, you have to really wonder: what's the point in having a family at all?

I appreciate you writing honestly about this. If we could have reasonable minded men and women having a conversation about this outside of official channels then we might move the situation forward a bit.

I do understand the point you're making. Here in Australia, for instance, the price of housing is so high that it's difficult for young people to survive on a single income.

I'd encourage you, though, to try to put yourself in a position in which you can at least give yourself something of an option of staying at home for a period of time.

If you encourage your future husband to get a decent job and be a good provider and if you buy in a more affordable area and take out a longer term mortgage, perhaps you could be at home while the children are still young. Or perhaps, at the very least, you could reduce your hours and limit the amount of formal childcare.

The problem is that the period of casual relationships has become so long, that the more dependable men can get discouraged.

Again, I think, due to the modern pressure on women to have careers. A lot of girls enrol in Medicine or Law degrees, which can take up to 6-7 years to complete- by which time they're already getting into their mid 20s. Add to that another couple of years focusing on their hard-earned career, and before they know it they wake up and they're 32.

Plus, as other people have said, the other part of the problem is the lack of incentive for men to get married at all. Take this story: a friend of mine's parents recently got a divorce. The wife went off and had an affair with another man, left, and is now at court with the husband hoping to get his house plus half his yearly wages. Under the Family Law Act, it's looking very likely that she'll get it- even though the husband wasn't abusive, never cheated, was a good father, etc etc. When things like this are allowed to happen I'm not at all surprised that men are hesitant to marry.

Re: children, I would avoid putting my kids in childcare at all costs. As my mother often says, having a mum stay at home and be with her kids is not at all the same as dumping them in a childcare centre all day. The mothering process is a necessary form of socialisation. People can't just dismiss it as some casualty of feminism; kids need to learn how to be sensitive and how to be caring. Only the mother can teach them that. It's a natural system that's been in place since the beginning of time, and the fact that modern society seems to place so little value on it is baffling.

I appreciate you writing honestly about this. If we could have reasonable minded men and women having a conversation about this outside of official channels then we might move the situation forward a bit.

This reminds me of how much I dislike the current liberal system. I think it's oppressive, conformist, and above all hypocritical. If you express a point of view that isn't in line with the opinion dictated by the majority, then the majority jumps on you like a pack of wolves. Look at what happened to Pauline Hanson: the public and the media virtually drove her out of the country. She was the subject of widespread mockery and derision simply because she had a different opinion. Why? I didn't agree with everything she had to say either, but she actually made a fair few valid points. I think if people had only stopped to listen they might have even learnt something from her, but instead all they did was make rude jokes about her on television and in the newspapers. How does this kind of behaviour benefit society in any way, shape or form?

I think that's the thing that rankles me the most about liberalism: this knee-jerk reaction they seem to have to anything even vaguely right wing. If a person says something a liberal doesn't agree with, the liberal will instantly switch off and dismiss them as 'an idiot' or some other equally worthless insult. There's no argument, no debate, no discussion. Why? Isn't the whole point of liberalism supposed to be about being tolerant and open-minded? How can they justify themselves when they don't practise what they preach? I don't understand why they don't encourage different points of view.

Liberals don't necessarily have to adopt conservative ways of thinking, but at the very least they should listen to what we have to say.

Bartholomew wrote: “What she meant to say, I think, is that we men should start achieving great things again and outperform the women and especially the Asians.”

I believe Henry has a point, albeit made a little insensitively. I don’t agree with your above clarification – it is fundamentally flawed. The flaw is in the fact that traditionalism is premised on the co-complimentarity of men and women; any programme that teaches them to compete against each other, on any level, will doom society to failure in the same way liberalism has doomed it to failure.

Jess_7 wrote: “I think the idea is not to be as tough on women so that they in turn don't have to be as tough and unfeminine to defend themselves.”

Exactly!

Mark Richardson wrote: “The problem is that single men are going to meet a lot of women who don't inspire or merit such a response.”

... which I believe was Henry’s point.

Anon wrote: “Men: maybe if you treated women more nicely women wouldn't be such bitches.”

Realising the falsity of this statement is the genesis of Game Theory. I do not support Game Theory, mind you. I’m just acknowledging the fact that men sign up to it because... well... nice guys are sick of coming last.

... which requires both gender to complement each other, not compete against each other. The very base-level code of acceptable conduct in today’s liberal world is inherently hostile to the creation and maintenance of normative relations between the two genders.

Mark Richardson: "... That's one reason why I believe it's critical to get the age of family formation down a few years, from the early thirties to say the mid-20s."

For that to happen, the men who wish to lay claim to being "good guys" will have to disavow the "sexual revolution" in their very own lives: if they want to clain to be "good guy," then they'll have to *be* good guys.

As it is, most so-called good guys are focused on "getting pussy," rather than on getting a wife and a family. And the end result is that (nearly) all the women ... and the men ... are "damaged goods" by the time they do finally get around to (and typically out of inertia) marrying.

"The flaw is in the fact that traditionalism is premised on the co-complimentarity of men and women; any programme that teaches them to compete against each other."

I think I understand what you and Henry are saying: In a traditional society, men and women complement each other, rather than compete. A man no more out-competes a woman in, say, Engineering, than a woman out-competes a man in, say, Childhood Education. They're simply different areas and remain distinct.

I completely agree. But we aren't living in a traditional society; we're living in a modern one. And in this modern society men and women do compete. Anon was pointing out, I think, that before women accept men as natural leaders in certain areas of life, they must once again see them as naturally better at doing certain tasks in life. Anyway, that's what I understand Anon's plan to be.

I readily concede that her point would entail some very ungentlemanly competition with women, and I agree with you, Henry and Kilroy, that that's regrettable. But, Anon might well be right: we defeat egalitarianism by proving the reality of hierarchy. That the re-imposition of hierarchy first requires competition and defeat seems like a reasonable argument.

The other possibility is one that, I believe, Laura Woods pointed out to Kristor during a discussion of patriarchy a few weeks ago. Namely, we believe in traditional gender roles not because of evolutionary biology or relative fitness for certain tasks, but because we believe in a transcendent order that has so arranged things between the sexes.

I prefer the latter explanation. But, there is a certain amount of truth to the former, don't you think?

By the way, when I mentioned the word "hierarchy" in the previous post, I did not mean that man is somehow better or higher than woman.

I just meant that in any given area of life, men or women might do better or hold exclusive right. Men, for instance, cannot bear children. In that sense, there are multiple hierarchies throughout life.

Ilion wrote: “As it is, most so-called good guys are focused on "getting pussy," rather than on getting a wife and a family. And the end result is that (nearly) all the women ... and the men ... are "damaged goods" by the time they do finally get around to (and typically out of inertia) marrying.”

This is yet another liberal fallacy. It ascribes the same sexual morality to men and women without understanding the very different sexual realities of both. Yes, I know I know, it takes two to tango, but it is just plain silly to consider a man “damaged goods” if he has been promiscuous. What exactly has been “damaged”? Men’s virginity cannot be compared to that of women. A woman is “damaged goods” because she carries and gives birth to the child – broken virginity, which for women has a physical aspect as well as the spiritual etc takes on a far different level of importance. The only way a man can be seen as “damaged goods” is if he’s has a testicle removed…

By the way, “good guys” by definition are not focused on “getting pussy”… they lead chaste lives and wait for the right girl, who they respect and expect the respect to be reciprocated. Unfortunately, the reciprocation is largely absent these days… which accounts for male rejection of marriage IMHO.

Bartholomew wrote: “But we aren't living in a traditional society; we're living in a modern one. And in this modern society men and women do compete.”

Yes. So we shouldn’t be surprised if and when there is growing hostility between genders. Seems pretty obvious to me…

Bartholomew continued: “Anon was pointing out, I think, that before women accept men as natural leaders in certain areas of life, they must once again see them as naturally better at doing certain tasks in life … Anon might well be right: we defeat egalitarianism by proving the reality of hierarchy.”

… which is a capitulation to liberalism by impliedly accepting the premises of modern gender politics: an irrational admixture of radical autonomy theory and identity politics. Annon’s position does not differ much from the Gamers, who simply accept what is happening and use it to their advantage. Take Annon’s “point” to its logical extension: it means that the genders’ competition against each other will only increase with time. How far can this go before our heads explode?

Kilroy: "This is yet another liberal fallacy. It ascribes the same sexual morality to men and women without understanding the very different sexual realities of both. … Men’s virginity cannot be compared to that of women. …The only way a man can be seen as “damaged goods” is if he’s has a testicle removed…"

Are you incredibly ignorant? Or are you simply a dissembling “liberal” ... perhaps one who imagines that human beings are merely animals?

There is one morality, and it applies to all human beings, equally. And there is nothing either fallacious nor left-wing about recognizing and stating this and expecting all human beings to acknowledge it.

And, the point is not virginity, much less is it about lack of bodily damage; the point is chastity and the safeguarding of one's soul/psyche (*). The important damage to human beings, that which makes them "damaged goods," does not happen in their bodies, it happens in their soul/psyche. The body is route by which the soul/psyche is damaged.

The reason our societies are going down the tubes is because of the society-wide acceptance of the mindset you are displaying; the disavowal of real morality. And it was prominent men, in our parents' and grandparents' generations, who lead the way in promulgating that mindset. And it was the masses of ordinary men, accepting that mindset, who set us on the path we are on. And, if our societies are to get on a different path, one not leading to social suicide, it will be because the masses of ordinary men repudiate that mindset.

=========(*) In important ways, in ways which they need to understand but do not, it is men who are the "weaker" sex, it is men who are the "romantic" sex.

Unless a man is "strong" -- in that psychopathic way with which no normal man wants to be associated -- for all his bluster, a man really cannot compartmentalize sex and love; it is women who are strong in that dubious ability.

When a man has sex with a woman -- even if he’s (foolishly and wickedly) telling himself that he’s just “getting a piece” -- he ties himself to her emotionally, and eventually the strengthening ties bind his psyche to her -- but not necessarily to her psyche. Ideally, this tie is to be psyche-to-psyche; but, because women are “stronger” in this regard, because women *can* compartmentalize sex and love, the tie may easily not involve her psyche, which makes the man her slave.

Why do you think some cultures are so misogynistic? Why do you think that as the Western peoples throw away their Christian heritage - and even as the official “liberal” credo involves feminism and anti-masculinity -- our cultures are becoming increasing misogynistic?

A man needs to do his rational best to ensure that he binds his psyche only to a woman -- to a single woman -- who is worthy of sacrificing his life to and for.

Because men's natures call then to self-sacrifice for the sake of that which they cherish, it is difficult for a man to remain rationally detached about a woman even before mating with her. And, when a man engages in sex with a woman before he has rationally decided to lovingly sacrifice his life to and for her, the decision (such as is eventually made) will be made irrationally and out of inertia. And a marriage set in motion by mere inertia will always run out of steam, and the man is likely to discover that the inertia which he came to imagine was loving self-sacrifice is merely the killing of his own psyche.

"Yes, that's a point the Roissyites neglect at times. The so-called "betas" do often get to be the ones women settle with."

They don't ignore it, they just don't care for it.Even if women settle down with a beta what's the point? Anyone with a shred of thinking mind would deduce that she does so because she ran out of options.

Or that women enjoy sex with alphas and then decide to "love" betas which somehow aligns well with this comment:"Teach your sons that sex is not love, and teach your daughters to keep their pants on."

So a son should realize that when a woman has sex with guys he knows to be assholes he shouldn't care because she will come back to love him. Haha, too bad that doesn't fly anymore because unlike the conventional wisdom the truth is that women are more ready to have sex w/o love and when they run out of men suddenly they want to find someone to love.

"Make up your minds. Do you want us to study are arses off and get good grades..."

I think the most judicious reply to that is to get into the kitchen and make a sandwich.

"Despite my rants, I agree with everything you guys say."

*sigh*

"Pride in culture and heritage and that children are not a burden but awesome and cute.

Realize that they don't know what to do and they won't figure it out till they are 40 and childless.

As our single anon amply demonstrates, even though being quite masculine in her outlook, she doesn't know what to do while throwing out phrases which are rants and agreeing with everyone at the same time.

"Professional women have been hit the hardest."

Have been hit? They did it to themselves.But they will never have the intelligence to own it up.Instead you'd see the pushing of paternity leave and other such kind of BS to put men with even more responsibilities.Coupled with the taunts like this of single anon:"How bout you all make a conscious decision to raise your sons with enough self-confidence and Aggression to kick ass of not only the women but everyone else … Instead of dumbing down the girls...how bout you men Rise Up to face the challenge? Be smarter, faster, more aggressive, and more dominant."

Ilion, I’m sorry, but after reading your first paragraph, I thought it would be a waste of my time to read the rest given your obviously hostile attitude. I seem to have upset you about something, but don’t feel it would be fruitful to investigate further.

All I can say is that your universally applied morality fails to consider that people and groups of people should be treated differently under natural law due to their inherent differences etc. This is not considering people to be “animals”, merely acknowledging the obvious differences between, in this case, men and women. Yes, we are all spiritually equal in the eyes of God, but we also have a certain biological realities to acknowledge here on the mundane plane, and it is on this plane that traditional morality functions with respect to behaviour. The moral code is indeed “universal” but the specific code of conduct for one class of person is not going to be identical to another. If indeed you were a traditionalist, you would understand that the specific taboo on female sexuality has existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years for a reason.

I reject your assertion that I am behaving like a liberal in seeing this; as a matter of fact, I suggest that your extension of the progressive formal equality principle to all conduct irrespective of inherent distinctions between men, women etc makes you far more comparable to the modern egalitarian progressive drunk on liberal autonomy theory and radical individualism.

Ilíon "There is one morality, and it applies to all human beings, equally."

But there are as many moralities as there are people on this planet.With women you have as many moralities as their moods.

"Unless a man is "strong" -- in that psychopathic way with which no normal man wants to be associated -- for all his bluster, a man really cannot compartmentalize sex and love; it is women who are strong in that dubious ability."

"The reason our societies are going down the tubes is because of the society-wide acceptance of the mindset you are displaying; the disavowal of real morality. "

imo it's because of making women the custodians of morality; not realizing their inherent amorality or their lack of soul.Then telling men that they are sex crazed beings who don't like love and they should make a distinction between the two.

The really funny thing is, the "rules" men are always accused of setting are the ones we do not set. And the ones we do set tend to get blamed on the women.

For instance, women are always blaming men for the "rules" that cause them to hate themselves and/or behave in strange, and frequently self-destructive, manners, such as with bulimia or anorexia. Women do the crazy thinigs they do because they see themselves in competition with all other women (starting as competition with their own mothers).

They emphatically do not do what they do to win the attention and/or approval of a man; they do it to "prove" to other women that they can have any man they want, anytime they want. Of course, that "proof" is based on having a Hollywood-mediated false understanding of men's psychology.

But, on the other hand, a society with is structured so as to safe and nurturing for human beings should be blamed on men, not on women: it is *men* who chose to make stable families the basic unit of society. Until they're quite mature, women tend not to think outside their own immediate circle and past what they can see right now; whereas men, even before they have children, frequently are thinking already about their grandchildren.

Ilíon: "There is one morality, and it applies to all human beings, equally."

Namae Nanka: "But there are as many moralities as there are people on this planet.With women you have as many moralities as their moods."

Really? And yet, you said (immediately next):

Namae Nanka: "imo it's because of making women the custodians of morality; not realizing their inherent amorality or their lack of soul"

Regardless of the truth-value of this claim, how does it make sense to make the claim if there is not *one* morality?

Ilíon: "The reason our societies are going down the tubes is because of the society-wide acceptance of the mindset you are displaying; the disavowal of real morality."

Namae Nanka: "imo it's because of making women the custodians of morality; not realizing their inherent amorality or their lack of soul.Then telling men that they are sex crazed beings who don't like love and they should make a distinction between the two."

Well, net exactly.

Women are no more inherently amoral or immoral than are men. Rather, it's that the two sexes tend to express their flaws in different, though stereotypical-for-the-sex, ways.

"Regardless of the truth-value of this claim, how does it make sense to make the claim if there is not *one* morality?"

To make myself clear I didn't mean to imply one morality that the women are custodians of, rather that they are assumed to be more moral than men.

And it stands because amorality is a lack of morality, not simply another kind of morality.Women's morality fluctuates so soon that if you called them moral A=A will hide its head in shame.

There is not one morality, because our bounds of hypocrisy differ.We both can be rational, but at some point we will have to differ.My rationality might end in jumping off a cliff because all this world is just an dream to me, or let's say Roissyites' is to bang as many good-looking women as they can, yours might be to raise a family.Who is more moral in that case? The less hypocrite one? Or the one who is more practical/societal?

"Women are no more inherently amoral or immoral than are men. "

Amoral, calling them immoral would be a recognition of the fact that they can understand and reject morality.

"Rather, it's that the two sexes tend to express their flaws in different, though stereotypical-for-the-sex, ways."

If the flaws are different why have similar morality for the both of them? :)Where do you become a hypocrite to differentiate between the two based on these sex-stereotypical ways?Or blame it on culture and become a feminist?

Simply saying having flaws to be immoral is hard in these days, today one gets by saying that it's the guilt for having a flaw that makes one moral.I don't think women have a conscience that would give them this guilt unless society told them to be or unless they found out that they have lost something they can't have now.Like the ability to have biological kids or like the 8 they let go in their youth.

On the other hand, feminism has been fueled by the guilt of men and women who wanted opportunities to spread their wings, and anti-feminism is rising now because men want morality of justice, not simply because they are being "forced" to stay at home against their wishes.

Pretty big difference in sex-stereotypes to even try to formulate a single morality.

Dismantling a problem into its fundamental elements is impossible with a liberal like Ilion because he/she/it does not recognise the inherent differences between, in this case, men and women, which will naturally lead to a denial that men and women may have different social roles and by extension, a differing code of conduct/behaviour etc. Of course, another dead giveaway of the liberal mindset is the hyperventilating reaction to having this pointed out to him/her/it.